Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hmt Machine Tools Ltd vs Cc,Ce&St, Hyderabad-I on 1 January, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench SMB Court I Appeal No.E/20476/2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.101/2013-(H-IV)CE dt. 24/10/2013 passed by CC,CE&ST(Appeals-II), Hyderabad) For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. HMT Machine Tools Ltd. ..Appellant(s) Vs. CC,CE&ST, Hyderabad-I ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri M. Narayanasamy Naidu, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Prasad Adelli, Addl. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing:01/01/2016 Date of decision:01/01/2016 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The appellant challenges the confirmation of demand on the ground of failure of reversing the CENVAT credit on unused inputs or capital goods when the same were written off.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants advanced his arguments on the issue of limitation. It is submitted that the demand pertains to the year 2007-08 against the value of inputs written off for the reason that the same became obsolete and not useful for the appellants. It is the case of the Department that the appellants did not inform the Department the fact of such writing off of obsolete items and the same came to light only during the scrutiny of balance sheet. A show-cause notice dt. 24/01/2013 was issued to the appellants proposing demand of Rs.8,98,137/- along with interest and also proposing imposition of penalty. After adjudication, the demand to the extent of Rs.1,17,975/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty of equal amount was also imposed. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant is a public sector undertaking and obsolete items written off was reflected in their balance sheet. The show-cause notice issued after a period of more than 5 years is time-barred as there was no suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. He also placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of BSNL Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2009(15) STR 359 (Tri. Ahmd.)].
3. The learned AR Shri Prasad reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the appellants ought to have informed the Department and reversed the credit. That the Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly upheld the demand. As seen from the facts, it is correct that the show-cause notice has been issued beyond the period prescribed by law. There is no evidence to establish any intention to evade payment of duty on the part of appellant, which is a public sector undertaking. Following the ratio laid down in the case of BSNL (supra), I am of the view that the demand is not sustainable being time barred. The issue of limitation having been answered in favour of the assessee, I do not find it necessary to enter into the issue of merits. In the result, the impugned order is set aside being time-barred. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court) SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Raja.
3